Disappointment comes in many forms and is a common part of science, grant writing, and publishing. Just the other day, I had a colleague tell me he was disappointed with the results he recently obtained. He expected a correlation between 2 variables, and this was not observed. We chatted for a while and came to the conclusion that other correlations may be present, and he set off investigating those possibilities. Sure enough, when a different perspective was taken, new options appeared.
Disappointment often arises in science as well as from interactions with our colleagues, and being rejected is never dealt with easily. Our first rejection, being told “no” as a child, occurs when a person in the position of authority suggests that we can't have our way. The utterance of “no” is often met by disappointment and even tantrums as we learn the conformities and boundaries of our social network. As we mature, the obstacles grow in number and size and we learn how to avoid obstacles, elude them, overcome them, or confront them, possibly on a repetitive basis. In instances when rejections result from efforts directed toward highly desirous goals or occur repeatedly, we can develop feelings of insecurity and inadequacy that can become long-lasting memories. These memories can diminish our zeal for a topic or our desire for pursuit. However, these disappointments can be experiences of great growth if we learn from them instead of chalking them up as failures.
Historically, scientists have long encountered the concept of disappointment. In the United States, one of the best examples is Thomas Alva Edison. Although considered by his childhood teachers to be a failure, Edison went on to become one of the greatest inventors of the modern era. He was issued over 1,000 patents, and many of these changed the lives of millions. However, Edison had numerous unsuccessful projects, including the notable inability to extract iron ore. And his first invention, the electric voting machine, was not met with great enthusiasm. Like many people, Edison is reported to have met rejection with a contemptuous attitude, resolving never again to invent what would not sell.1
Disappointment from rejection looms in many locations within our workplace, but has 4 definable tiers for scientists. At the elementary level is the receipt of funds needed to do experiments. Funding is clearly limited these days, and good ideas and experiments may not be performed, because the proportion of grants being funded by the National Institutes of Health is down compared with a decade ago (competing Research Project Grant applications in 1998 were successfully funded at a rate of 32%; by 2007 the funding rate had declined to 21%).2 However, our government invests about 2.7% of the gross domestic income on science,3 a commitment made originally during the Civil War, so in theory the most meritorious efforts are still being supported.
Disappointment can also occur at the second tier, when designed experiments fail for apparent or no apparent reason. Experiments may not be repeatable owing to poor study design, laboratory errors, or unforeseen confounders. Careful attention to background information and the scientific method often allows for success in this arena but may not be evident to the investigator, and that is where attention to detail, good mentoring, and collaborations are key.
Once success is achieved in funding and experiments, disappointment still may be looming at the stage of publishing the findings in a reputable journal. Here, having important findings that are presented in an accurate, logical, and clear manner are critical factors for success. Success also comes from aligning the manuscript with the goals and purposes of the journal and realizing the competition involved in gaining publication. For example, the Oral Medicine section of this journal receives >300 manuscripts annually. Only ∼50 of these are published each year, indicating an acceptance rate of only ∼18% and a rejection rate of ∼82%. Just 5 years ago our section received only ∼100 manuscripts per year and published ∼35 manuscripts, indicating the growth in competition. Thus, rejection is a more common outcome than acceptance and could be considered to be the norm. Alternatively, the rejection of a manuscript could be interpreted to mean that there are better manuscripts being submitted than those being rejected. Perspective here is key.
The fourth tier of research in which disappointment may arise is the broad acceptance of the scientific findings. Like Edison and his voting machine, many scientists present novel ideas in publications that are not well accepted or overlooked at the time or for many years. A classic example is Peyton Rous, who published in 1910 and 1911 in the Journal of Experimental Medicine that a malignant tumor can be caused by a filterable agent (i.e., viruses, as they were then known).4, 5 Although his peers scoffed at his theories, and Rous became greatly discouraged by the lack of support, his findings eventually led to the Nobel Prize 55 years later and revolutionized our thinking of virus-induced malignancy and oncogenes.
Your Perspective and Resolve
As mentioned above, every rejection has a reason and a perspective. The perspective you take on the receipt of rejection can make all the difference in the world. For example, the issuer of the rejection may be correct or incorrect in their assessment. Often, the scorned individual's initial instinct is that the rejecter is wrong and that no fault is present. However, here is where contemplation should enter the picture. Instead of taking “no” as a final answer, as an absolute and personal rejection, use the “no” as a doorway to opportunity. Mr. Michael Young, an archetypal social entrepreneur and philanthropist after whom the Young Foundation is named, once stated, “Always take no as a question, not as an answer.” In other words, consider “no” as a way to ask questions such as, “Why did I get rejected? What can I do to improve this work? Can I approach this topic differently and by doing so be more successful? Is there a better or more creative position that I can take?” Sometimes with scientific writing, the authors just need to write with greater clarity to educate the reviewers better, and in turn the reviewers can then see the quality and importance of the work. In other cases, taking on a different perspective (i.e., the reviewer's position) could lead to improved outcomes. Many times, acquiring a new position takes time and discussion with colleagues who might not be as closely vested as you.
We all are presented with disappointments from time to time, and history teaches us that “no” is merely the opportunity for a new idea, an innovation, a needed reform or change in our thinking. Paradigm shifts happen, but there is usually resistance. Established thoughts and standards do not change quickly or easily, and you are encouraged not to become pessimistic. Change often requires convincing evidence, repeated evidence, or overwhelming evidence that convinces others that there may be a new or better way. You can be the reason for change. Why not be the reason for change by overcoming the adversity that may stand in your way?
FULL TEXT